[Closed] The trial of Anders Breivik

konabunny - Member
I've voted SNP and Lib Dem for years as it happens, it's only after the left have demonstrated their full capability over the past decade and a bit that I swung a little further to the right and went against everything I ever judged as fair and reasonable and voted Tory...
My political views are not part of this

Of course not - what could possibly be considered more open to the application of impartial logic and less political then deciding whether the state is entitled to kill people who commit politically-motivated crimes?
But joking apart, I thought the bit where you suggested your track record of voting for the Tartan Tories and the Lib Dems (currently in coalition with the Tories) as demonstrating your former leftist sympathies was hilarious. Peter Capaldi move over, there's a new satirist in town!

Typo SNP = SDP, The gang of four that became the Dem bit of the then Liberal party.

I'm not Scottish nor have any sympathy with that horrendous Salmond fella..

It should be universally accepted that mass termination of human life is recognised as an uncurable sickness and the perpetrator terminated.

So how many is "mass" 3, 5 10, 50? Who decides and who tells the mother of a murdered child that their child's life was worth less because it didn't fit the quota?

It should be universally accepted that mass termination of human life is recognised as an uncurable sickness and the perpetrator terminated.

I see.

And what defines "mass termination"? How many people would you have to be accused of murdering before you get put to death without trial?

binners - Member
It should be universally accepted that mass termination of human life is recognised as an uncurable sickness and the perpetrator terminated.
Why? Because you said so?

I'm not Scottish nor have any sympathy with that horrendous Salmond fella..

Given your views thats not exactly surprising

Anyway back OT

Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Derek? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment.

I believe human life and the continued right to it, even for you and other single speed riding lycra boys who bivi in the same sleeping bag is fundamental to the human condition.

😐

are you confessing to a personality disorder as you seem to want to terminate someones life and therefor eit appears to me you cannot [b]decipher 'right from wrong' [/b]
😯

Do we wait for you to kill somone before we kill you or would that be illogical? Should we just kill you now in a pre emptive way to save lifes?
Which is the more logical approach ?
Please tell me I am hand wringning about this as I type

Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Derek? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment.

richmtb wins for Gandalfing the thread.

inability to decipher 'right from wrong' is commonly held as a personality disorder last time I looked

It is a fundamental human right to live and not be terminated before your due time in a fashion like this

It should be universally accepted that mass termination of human life is recognised as an uncurable sickness and the perpetrator terminated.

The irony I am finding in your proposal is that the very people that were harmed by Breivik are the people who hold the kind of "leftist" views of "tolerance and acceptance" you seem to be advocating are detrimental to society.

Apparently he is not happy with the influx of immigrants into the country especially in the past 20 odd years ... like a bit of a shock to the system. You know overdose of immigrants.

UK is traditionally an immigrants nation so not a shock to the system but Norway is different.

This is the statistic ...

[url= http://www.ssb.no/innvandring_en/ ]Proper website stats[/url]

Apparently the documentary about him last night talked about 25% immigrant population ... wow ... that is a lot for a small nation.

So all those talks about cultural diversity and integration ... I wonder if these are necessary? Is it wrong not to integrate?

🙄

MSP - Member
It should be universally accepted that mass termination of human life is recognised as an uncurable sickness and the perpetrator terminated.
So how many is "mass" 3, 5 10, 50? Who decides and who tells the mother of a murdered child that their child's life was worth less because it didn't fit the quota?

POSTED 3 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST
GrahamS - Member
It should be universally accepted that mass termination of human life is recognised as an uncurable sickness and the perpetrator terminated.
I see.

And what defines "mass termination"? How many people would you have to be accused of murdering before you get put to death without trial?

Not my decision, how many do you think is fair? Say more than half a dozen?

Don't you see the logic if it were automatic? I seriously don't understand folk who don't get this.

If there is absolutely no doubt, no question the mass killer is stood there with an empty magazine and bodies lying all around, women, children, why prolong the angst with long drawn out deliberation, surely that serves as more pain and suffering for the relatives.. If there is absolutely no doubt, it should be an auto response.

littlemisspanda - Member
It should be universally accepted that mass termination of human life is recognised as an uncurable sickness and the perpetrator terminated.
The irony I am finding in your proposal is that the very people that were harmed by Breivik are the people who hold the kind of "leftist" views of "tolerance and acceptance" you seem to be advocating are detrimental to society.

I've got to stop this now, it's going nowhere.

But the answer to that surely is an element of Darwinism, right wing gunman mows down leftwing youth and the Left try rehabilitation as an answer..

Clearly I'm in the minority here, I accept all your views and have to beg to differ..

derekrides - Member

littlemisspanda - Member
It should be universally accepted that mass termination of human life is recognised as an uncurable sickness and the perpetrator terminated.
The irony I am finding in your proposal is that the very people that were harmed by Breivik are the people who hold the kind of "leftist" views of "tolerance and acceptance" you seem to be advocating are detrimental to society.

I've got to stop this now, it's going nowhere.

But the answer to that surely is an element of Darwinism, right wing gunman mows down leftwing youth and the Left try rehabilitation as an answer..

Clearly I'm in the minority here, I accept all your views and have to beg to differ..

Chairman Mao has the solution ... How many million people do you say? He is the greatest. 🙄

Clearly I'm in the minority here,

Not my decision, how many do you think is fair? Say more than half a dozen?

Okay so what do you say to the mother of a child whose killer gets a trial and jail sentence because, although he kidnapped, tortured and killed her child - it was [i]just[/i] one? Or even [i]just[/i] six?

If there is absolutely no doubt, no question the mass killer is stood there with an empty magazine and bodies lying all around, women, children...

How often do these situations occur exactly? 😕

And even then, do you [i]really[/i] want to dispense with trial?

So if the accused claims they were one of the intended victims that managed to fight back to kill the attacker, that should be roundly ignored and they should be quickly put to death without trial?

Don't you see the logic if it were automatic? I seriously don't understand folk who don't get this.

I seriously don't understand people who see the world in such black and white absolute terms.

because the inability to decipher 'right from wrong' is commonly held as a personality disorder last time I looked

Despite the best efforts of a catholic education, I've been known to struggle with it from time to time. Does your homicidal urge to punish transgressors of your simple moral code extend only to mass murderers? Or will it apply to rapists too? shoplifters?

seriously don't understand people who see the world in such black and white absolute terms.

Oh and Derek.... well done! You've managed to out-Hora Hora. I didn't think it was possible. Are you related? Do you look like this....

[img] [/img]

It should be universally accepted that mass termination of human life is recognised as an uncurable sickness and the perpetrator terminated.

These guys are in trouble, then.

[img] [/img]

richmtb wins for Gandalfing the thread.

I'm normally against indiscriminate verbing of nouns, that that's genius. (-:

oh good a circular argument

Hi! You must be new here.

I'm normally against indiscriminate [b]verbing[/b] of nouns, that that's genius. (-:

As was that cougar 😉 I hope it was intentional! Genius x2 plus an extra mark for context and subtlety

[img] [/img]

I hope it was intentional!

*nods* Well spotted. (-:

An interesting statistic that I read today compares the percentage of recidivist prisoners released in the UK with Norway.

U.K: 50-60%

Norway: 10%

On the face of it, the "soft" Norwegian philosophy seems to get the better results, despite the accusations of "daft leftie" [i](sic)[/i] banded about here and elsewhere...

There's often the argument that rehabilitation is better than punishment, but now there's a chance to watch the process actually being attempted with what is arguably the very worst sort of offender.

Interesting.

Mrs Toast - Member

Will he be locked up for life? I though the max jail term in Norway was 21 years, even for murder?

EDIT: Just double checked, 21 is the standard 'life' sentence, but it can be 30 years for terrorism, or indefinite if it can be proved that the criminal is an ongoing threat.

He's looking at 70 life sentences though isn't he? 1470 years.

Don't they run such things concurrently rather than consecutively?

😳

Quick google confirms that a)93 life sentences and b)Norway does indeed run them concurrently.

An interesting statistic that I read today compares the percentage of recidivist prisoners released in the UK with Norway.

Does anyone mind if I finish my work before STW breaks the Internet by all googling Recidivist at once.

BigButSlimmerBloke - Member
Clearly I'm in the minority here,

Often happens when you're in the wrong.

Not really a problem when you're surrounded by folk who have to ask stuff like

"Why did my seat stem break at the point I centre punched it"
"How do I kill a pidgeon ?"
"My wife/boyfriend is banging someone else what should I do?"
"Why does my beard stink when I've been bivi-ing?"
"Why do I keep breaking stuff when I come off in my SPD's?"
"Why do people think I look like a cock in my yellow lycra?"

He's pleaded not guilty/saying he acted in self-defence.

He was protesting at the immigration of Europe.. At a Norwegian rite of passage of natives to Norway?

He's either abit simple or a unhinged mentally ill murderer.

Just watched him on the six o'clock news, gave a right wing salute to the court, he is loving all this.

He's now the most famous Norwegian, probably the most famous Norwegian in the world today, y'all probably couldn't name the Premier of Norway without googling it, he's the most infamous Norwegian since Quisling and of similar status.

Now if my plan had been followed at the time, he'd have been long forgotten by now..

[i]He's now the most famous Norwegian[/i]

NOT...

[img] [/img]

Shut up now derek, you're not even entertaining.

Now if my plan had been followed at the time, he'd have been long forgotten by now..

He's not famous he's infamous. I have no problem the world seeing what a horrid twisted human being he is, lets see the monsters that hide in our midst rather than pretending they don't exist.

Thor Bjørklund is the most famous Norweigian.
He invented the cheese slicer.

Gunn-Rita Dahle Flesjå is also a favourite;
[img] [/img]

[i]Just watched him on the six o'clock news, gave a right wing salute to the court, he is loving all this[/i]

put him in his cell, and ignore him. Edit, I don't want to understand, I don't want to learn why, and I don't want to see TV programmes about him

I don't care about him, i care about the people he killed and hurt

I can only think of the 100+ parents who suffer anquish on a daily basis. Their children executed by some random cock. Sorry if I don't role out the need for a trial or due process.

His case is truly exceptional. At the very least someone should have stepped in and said 'no', at the least a vote in parliament on this person.

I'm not sure on the aspects of UK law but the Hungerford massacre. Would you be happy with his right to speak/day/twisted media day in court?

Yes 0 everyone gets their day in court. You cannot have any exceptions or where do you draw the line? so Hora - how do you decide who dies not get their day in court?

[i]Would you be happy with his right to speak/day/twisted media day in court?[/i]

Yes.

...and that's the point; the Law has to be above emotion, above any prejudice (think about the origin of that word...), and above all free from the deluded simpletons who think their opinion should count. 😉

Why does it need to be filmed/in the public eye?

It perpetuates his/others agendas?

Or didn't you read/get my point?

Never mind, you carry on...

Why does it need to be filmed/in the public eye?

So the public can see what a grotesque creature he is, and those that post on internet forums their fantasies about violence and torture in the pursuit of their version of justice can see where that path leads.

MSP +1

The trial of Breivik and the publicity surrounding it will hopefully also cast light into the shadows where these sorts of right wing dissidents like to hide.

No its failure in the countries leadership in this case. Weak leadership. Yes a unique case due to a country collectively looking to understand however the idiot gets his platform.

Question, why do you think he readily surrendered? He didn't want to die but tell/glorify his 'achievement' knowing their justice system and the platform to spread his story further.

More intelligent/devious than you give his planning credit for.

Norwegians have a lot more dignity than a lot of Brits, when Anders Breivik arrived at court, there were no onlookers shouting and scream and wanting his blood unlike here in the UK, when a baying mob would want to lynch him. I think there is a lot to be said for how the Norwegians are dealing with this awful awful crime against 77 innocent lives.

No matter how much Anders Breivik pontificates and gets the publicity he desires, he will be just demonstrating what a monster and irrational psychopath he is.

Yes 0 everyone gets their day in court. You cannot have any exceptions or where do you draw the line? so Hora - how do you decide who dies not get their day in court?

Commonsense decides. Even if Breivik's appearance in court inspires just a handful of people, then it will have caused unjustified damage.

This is an exceptional case and Breivik has no right to be treated as a common murderer - which he very clearly isn't.

I am appalled that the Norwegian authorities have failed in their responsibilities to the international community and have allowed Breivik a platform to promote his views globally. He might well be just one individual but his views will have significant support among the far-right throughout the world. That level of vile hate is a threat to many countries and communities far beyond Norway. The Norwegians should be ashamed of themselves that they have put the right of one individual to justify his act of mass murder before any consideration at the possible repercussions this might have.

[i]“He is obviously pleased that he will be able to explain himself and that there is an interest in the case, there is no doubt about that,” Breivik’s defense lawyer Geir Lippestad said after the first day in court.[/i]

Crass liberal stupidity.

Thought experiment:

Forget about the Law and our justice system for a moment.

Imagine that the mother or father of one of the children was on the island and they managed to corner him after he'd shot all the children, including theirs.
They have a gun.
Should they shoot him?
Would you?

This isn't a comment about what is right and wrong, just answer honestly.

That level of vile hate is a threat to many countries and communities far beyond Norway.

Indeed, especially when it infests the thoughts of those who would use it as an excuse for secret justice, torture and state sanctioned murder, death squads, that's when he wins.

", he will be just demonstrating what a monster and irrational psychopath he is."

To you and me. To the deranged- glimpse at the numerous white knights/aryan nutter forums out there and it'll artificially age you when you see the outlandish pseudo-elitist racism spouted on there.

Seriously google Aryan/racist forums and read a few posters. You'll be amazed at people who exist and believe. Once on Pistonheads someone linked to a US forum and it was gobsmacking.

Mmmm, yes, let's have secret trials for those we think are baddies, I can't think of any circumstance when that would be a problem across the world, can you?

In fact, I can see those countries with human rights records that perhaps are open to question welcoming it with open arms.

Hmmm, yes, lets do it all in secret so we don't encourage the other baddies.

Could you think of a situation where this might be perhaps not a good idea?

Anyone?

"That level of vile hate is a threat to many countries and communities far beyond Norway."

Indeed, especially when it infests the thoughts of those who would use it as an excuse for secret justice, torture and state sanctioned murder, death squads, that's when he wins.

So you think that not giving Breivik a platform to promote his views would represent an infestation of vile hate ?

I can't think what else you can possibly mean by that ridiculous retort.

Burma, for example?
Or Tibet, under Chinese control?
North Korea?

Maybe Chechnya?

Can you think of any more societies who would ****ing love to be able to have trials in complete secret?

Have a wee think about what you are asking for, have a wee think about the impact of showing the world that it's ok to try people in secret because they have views which you don't agree with.

[i]"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"[/i]

This was written in 1906, why are you still playing catch up?

(...and, I have to say, seeing ernie and hora agreeing to be simple has made my day...)

Now if my plan had been followed at the time, he'd have been long forgotten by now..

Yep I can see it now:

"Apparently a bomb went off in Norway killing 8 then 69 people were shot, mainly children."
"Did they get anyone for it?"
"Yep, executed them on the spot under Derek's Law"
"Righto. Do you know won the snooker?"

It's all about multiculturalism innit ...

You do not have to be Breivik to go berserk and in some societies you have mass macheting of one race, tribes, community against the new comers, race tribes etc ... so Aryan or not it is going to happen if changes happen to soon too quickly. Look at some of the islanders in Indonesia for example, you get macheted simply for being outsiders with different belief if you are not careful.

So you think that not giving Breivik a platform to promote his views would represent an infestation of vile hate ?

Allowing "justice" to be performed behind closed doors, where unknown officials decide the fate of the accused would definitely be a victory for hatred.

GrahamS - Member
Now if my plan had been followed at the time, he'd have been long forgotten by now..
Yep I can see it now:

"Apparently a bomb went off in Norway killing 8 then 69 people were shot, mainly children."
"Did they get anyone for it?"
"Yep, executed them on the spot under Derek's Law"
"Righto. Do you know won the snooker?"

OK, so you are on the island you have a gun, he's just shot one of yours, answer this dudes question below.

FeeFoo - Member
Thought experiment:

Forget about the Law and our justice system for a moment.

Imagine that the mother or father of one of the children was on the island and they managed to corner him after he'd shot all the children, including theirs.
They have a gun.
Should they shoot him?
Would you?

This isn't a comment about what is right and wrong, just answer honestly.

No, you don't shoot him.

Because then you make him a martyr... You make him a hero for the cause, you give him status that he cannot gain when he sits in a dock and spouts his simplistic evil nonsense and does his stupid little hand gestures.

By subjecting him to the due process of the law, in public, in the full view of the world, you expose his juvenile, parochial racism for what it is.

Most of all, most of all, you show the world that violence, even of the most abhorrent, low, disgraceful kind, is [b]not[/b] the answer.

You demonstrate that you are [u]better[/u] than that.

OK, so your in a dark room, a single flickering light bulb creates more shadows than it dispels, tied to a solitary chair in the centre of the room, head covered with a black cloth hiding his face, is a sobbing terrified man, he could be anyone, another man, in a military uniform, hands you a gun tells you he is a killer, asks you to shoot him in the head.

Would you?

...and, ernie and hora, you show that a society where we are not afraid to show the world how wrong his way of thinking is, is the kind of society that we would like to live in.

Your mileage, as they say, may vary. Mine does not.

OK, so you are on the island you have a gun, he's just shot one of yours, answer this dudes question below.

If I caught someone who had "only" mugged my little girl then I might very well kill them, or at least do them serious injury in the heat of the moment.

Does that mean I think the punishment for mugging should be death (without trial)? No.

Burma, for example?
Or Tibet, under Chinese control?
North Korea?

Maybe Chechnya?

Can you think of any more societies who would ****ing love to be able to have trials in complete secret?

Have a wee think about what you are asking for, have a wee think about the impact of showing the world that it's ok to try people in secret because they have views which you don't agree with.

What the hell are you on about crikey ? Why are you trying to take a sensible suggestion not to allow a publicity seeking mass murderer a platform, and suggesting this somehow equates with North Korea ? Do you have to take it into the realms of the ridiculous ? Have you really never heard of reporting restrictions ? As an example, much of what the Yorkshire Ripper did was not reported at the time - due to concerns of copycat murders, but I think we can safely say that the Yorkshire Ripper received a fair trial.

Ernie - so where do you draw the line then? you say this is an exceptional case so should be treated differently but how and where do you draw the line?

Justice should be blind - every defendant gets the same rights to a trail on the same basis IMO.

so you sy his trial should be held in secret - how do you decide which ones should be held in secret?

Allowing "justice" to be performed behind closed doors, where unknown officials decide the fate of the accused would definitely be a victory for hatred.

I fail to see how having reporting restrictions would represent "a victory for hatred".

However giving him a public platform to justify his hate motivated mass murder would appear to be something of a victory for him.

Reporting restrictions? thats not derricks law, your squirming and changing your tune.

Ernie - so where do you draw the line then? you say this is an exceptional case so should be treated differently but how and where do you draw the line?

I have already answered that question - didn't you notice ? I said commonsense decides. Do you understand that concept ..... "commonsense" ?

I have already quoted his lawyer, let me do it again :

[i]“He is obviously pleased that he will be able to explain himself and that there is an interest in the case, there is no doubt about that,” Breivik’s defense lawyer Geir Lippestad said after the first day in court.[/i]

How daft do you have to be to understand how dangerous that is ?

Reporting restrictions? thats not derricks law, your squirming and changing your tune.

Who the **** is derrick ?

I haven't changed my tune at all - what are you talking about ?

[i]Do you have to take it into the realms of the ridiculous ?[/i]

Spoken like a true totaliarian dictator, well done ernie, well done.

You seem to be suggesting that it's okay for us to behave like that because we are the good guys, I wonder how many people have used that very same excuse.

Shame. You are usually quite astute with regard to political issues, in fact more astute than I could ever be. On this issue, however, you are wrong. The fact that hora agrees with you should at least cause you to pause and reflect.

A tongue in cheek quote from The Clash; 'You have the right to Free Speech, as long as you're not dumb enough to actually try it'.

I'm not trying to score points in a crappy STW debate; you are actually wrong, and I think if you consider the impact of a closed trial as opposed to the public trial which is occuring, you will see where the problem lies.

Ernie commonsense decides is no answer - you should know that.

Once you allow officials to decide who should be tried in secret its a very slippery slope - "common-sense decides" is very subjective way of looking at things. who decides what is commonsense? You? Hora? Derekrides?

Who the **** is derrick ?

ah I see, you haven't read the tread, just waded in with an opinion without realising the points of the discussion actually taking place, now I understand your confusion.

Spoken like a true totaliarian dictator, well done ernie, well done.

Well done. I argue that a hate-filled mass-murderer shouldn't be given a public platform to justify his actions, and that makes me like 'a true totalitarian dictator'. Get a grip ffs.

The fact that hora agrees with you should at least cause you to pause and reflect.

Er, no. I don't operate like that. The position I take is quite irrelevant to who's on my side - it's not a team sport.

OK, so your in a dark room, a single flickering light bulb creates more shadows than it dispels, tied to a solitary chair in the centre of the room, head covered with a black cloth hiding his face, is a sobbing terrified man, he could be anyone, another man, in a military uniform, hands you a gun tells you he is a killer, asks you to shoot him in the head.

Would you?

I too enjoyed the Bourne Ultimatum

ah I see, you haven't read the tread, just waded in with an opinion without realising the points of the discussion actually taking place, now I understand your confusion.

There's no confusion at all. I posted on the thread to give my opinion - not someones else's opinion.

It is you who appears to be confused in accusing of 'changing tune' because I'm not saying the same thing as someone else said. Pay attention and try not to confuse me with someone else.

[i]it's not a team sport.[/i]

You'd obviously never get picked were it so.

You don't seem like one for knee jerk reactions, but you appear to be doing exactly that; the nasty racist man is saying things I don't agree with, so he shouldn't be allowed to say them in public.

Perhaps a wee look at the history and essence of free speech would jog your memory; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

Here is another quote for you to consider;
[b]"Sunlight is the best disinfectant"[/b]

You don't seem like one for knee jerk reactions, but you appear to be doing exactly that; the nasty racist man is saying things I don't agree with, so he shouldn't be allowed to say them in public.

😀 It's got nothing to do with me not agreeing with him !

And everything to do with the dangers of giving a hate-filled mass murderer the opportunity to justify his actions.

[i]And everything to do with the dangers of giving a hate-filled mass murderer the opportunity to justify his actions.[/i]

..Really?

I mean really, really?

So we should pretend that the nasty man didn't do it because he was a right wing nutcase? That maybe he was a short sighted reindeer hunter who took his wife's glasses by mistake?

He's out there, he already exists, his poisonous idiocy has already spread across the internet, he is already a hero of the right wing simpletons. How is pretending anything else going to help?

Go to bed.

Here you are crikey, posted on Stormfront forum today :

Jew,Arabs,Africans and Hispanics agree-one mans terrorist is another man patriot.

Unfortunately it does sometimes take extreme terrorist like Breivik to bring attention to the REAL problem of mass unwanted and generally FORCED immigration,integration and intimidation by tens of thousands ,if not soon millions, of foreigners who were never wanted in his country.Acting is such a violent way,thought it may be repulsive to some,is in fact just the tip of the iceberg in Norway.Obviously Breivik is aware of the intolerable and destructive effects being currently done in Europe and all over America,with FORCED integration and immigration today; and does not desire to see his own country fall to the same monumental disaster.How much disgusting stupidity and ignorance is one man expected to live with under the disguise of equality,diversity,inclusion,tolerance and acceptance.

And :

Personally, I'm glad he's not claiming insanity or apologizing for his actions. There is a war against White nations and he is making it quite clear that he acted in self defense for his culture and his people.

I think his message is going to make a lot of people stop and think about what is happening to White nations across the world.

OK not everyone on that forum supports or feels sympathy for Breivik, the fact that he killed mainly white people doesn't go down very well with quite a few of them, but as I said earlier, if he inspires just a handful of people then the consequences could be disastrous.

So we should pretend that the nasty man didn't do it because he was a right wing nutcase? That maybe he was a short sighted reindeer hunter who took his wife's glasses by mistake?

I can't comment on his mental health, but the Norwegian authorities have, presumably according to you they are just pretending that he's not a "nutjob" ?

Go to bed.

And right there mate you fail

..I'll explain it again, because you are being peculiarly obtuse....

If a democratic nation state in Europe decides to hold the trial of a politically motivated murderer behind closed doors, then every other nation state across the world, including all the nasty ones that we pinko lefty westerners find to be not the kind of people we would invite round to dinner, will see that it is perfectly OK to do the same.

Let him spout his stupid rhetoric, let him chant his message of hate to the believers and the non-believers alike, then let him be tried and sentenced, in public, in the full glare of the world, and we will demonstrate that his views hold no value, that his nasty, evil, juvenile racism is not wanted, not required, and will not triumph.

He is a common criminal, treat him like one.

Or....

Do it behind closed doors, cos that will crush any latent facism straight away, won't it?